Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Xplora]

Go back to my statement about subtext. What lesson do we learn about Xplora from this thread? H909? Paddy?

You like to use be thoroughly cryptic and use long words when short ones will do. If your arguments weren't so paper thin it wouldn't be necessary.

Not at all. The painfully obvious explanations and evidence have already proven that MHL has failed. I am now dealing with the next stage of the argument - if we will not change the law despite the incredible failure after 20 years, we must now demonstrate why it is hurting cycling and cyclists. I don't use short words because I have never tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I am no politician or lobbyist. I hope that thinking people can be engaged and start to consider what a massive problem we face as a community - the importance of safety on a commute, and the responsibility of all people to pay attention when they are using a footpath or road or share path. Negligence seems to be unpunished, yet it feels that a cyclist is treated as negligent if they don't wear a helmet. Our legal structure sucks for the most dangerous act we do every day, and MHL is a part of that picture.

[wilddemon]

Lowest common denominator? Sounds like you are suffering superiority complex. And if you've moved on from the MHL debate, why don't you move on from the MHL thread?

[Kenzo]

I for one can totally understand Xplora without the need for a dictionary or thesaurus and I certainly do not consider myself an 'intellectual'.
I see the posts attacking his choice of words as against forum rules. Possibly simply to gain points in some perceived class war?

At any rate I agree - there does exist a need for further discussion. Laws change as society changes and I believe there has been a shift in the world.
we need to move away from motorised transport in urban areas and cycling is an option. Barriers to cycling need to be explored and if possible - removed.

[il padrone]

I for one can totally understand Xplora without the need for a dictionary or thesaurus and I certainly do not consider myself an 'intellectual'.
I see the posts attacking his choice of words as against forum rules. Possibly simply to gain points in some perceived class war?

Good point.

Play the ball, not the man.

[wilddemon]

Smoke and mirrors won't save anyone that comes off a pushbike fellas.

[wilddemon]

What this thread needs is a mediator lol

[human909]

Smoke and mirrors won't save anyone that comes off a pushbike fellas.

What is a pushbike?

Mandatory helmet laws aren't saving anybody either. They are making cyclists LESS safe on the roads.

[il padrone]

Smoke and mirrors won't save anyone that comes off a pushbike fellas.

What is a pushbike?

Ya haf ta push it mon! But look...... no helmet

[Xplora]

Smoke and mirrors won't save anyone that comes off a pushbike fellas.

If you have had a genuine risk of suffering catastrophic injury AKA death or permanent disability every time you came off your bike, I would advise you to stop riding. I've had a lot of spills in my lifetime, and only one had a risk of catastrophic injury. Every single car journey carries a greater risk, yet people don't need helmets there.

It's not smoke and mirrors - it's simply asking you to apply your brain to a simple subject. If you can't bear challenges to your opinions, you're missing out on an opportunity each time.

[wilddemon]

Smoke and mirrors won't save anyone that comes off a pushbike fellas.

If you have had a genuine risk of suffering catastrophic injury AKA death or permanent disability every time you came off your bike, I would advise you to stop riding. I've had a lot of spills in my lifetime, and only one had a risk of catastrophic injury. Every single car journey carries a greater risk, yet people don't need helmets there.

It's not smoke and mirrors - it's simply asking you to apply your brain to a simple subject. If you can't bear challenges to your opinions, you're missing out on an opportunity each time.

You do have genuine risk of suffering catastrophic injury every time you come off your bike. Thanks, but yours is the last advise I would take. You must be riding in a fantasy land far away from traffic and hard objects, and very slowly. Cycling doesn't NEED a helmet either. In fact, if you don't want to wear a helmet, don't. If you get done for it, and let's be honest, there is small chance that you will (IMO). And when you do, eventually, the money you saved on helmets will pay for the fine, and you won't have a criminal conviction.

I'm not refuting your claims that Every single car journey carries a greater risk (I'm assuming more risk than a bicycle, or pushbike, journey) but would you mind citing your reference? Thanks

[high_tea]

Smoke and mirrors won't save anyone that comes off a pushbike fellas.

If you have had a genuine risk of suffering catastrophic injury AKA death or permanent disability every time you came off your bike, I would advise you to stop riding. I've had a lot of spills in my lifetime, and only one had a risk of catastrophic injury. Every single car journey carries a greater risk, yet people don't need helmets there.

Is there any evidence to support the claim that motoring is more risky than cycling?

[wizdofaus]

Smoke and mirrors won't save anyone that comes off a pushbike fellas.

If you have had a genuine risk of suffering catastrophic injury AKA death or permanent disability every time you came off your bike, I would advise you to stop riding. I've had a lot of spills in my lifetime, and only one had a risk of catastrophic injury. Every single car journey carries a greater risk, yet people don't need helmets there.

Is there any evidence to support the claim that motoring is more risky than cycling?

Certainly in many European countries it's pretty clear you're more likely to be killed travelling for a certain amount of time in a motor vehicle vs on a bike. Stats for Australia are a bit murky unfortunately, going by, e.g. TAC figures, at best you can can say for sure is that cycling is no more likely to result in a fatality or permanent injury than driving. OTOH, you're definitely more likely to have some sort of minor (non-permanent) injury on a bike, including head injuries. For most of us however, that risk is well worth the pay off.

[high_tea]

If you have had a genuine risk of suffering catastrophic injury AKA death or permanent disability every time you came off your bike, I would advise you to stop riding. I've had a lot of spills in my lifetime, and only one had a risk of catastrophic injury. Every single car journey carries a greater risk, yet people don't need helmets there.

Is there any evidence to support the claim that motoring is more risky than cycling?

Certainly in many European countries it's pretty clear you're more likely to be killed travelling for a certain amount of time in a motor vehicle vs on a bike. Stats for Australia are a bit murky unfortunately, going by, e.g. TAC figures, at best you can can say for sure is that cycling is no more likely to result in a fatality or permanent injury than driving. OTOH, you're definitely more likely to have some sort of minor (non-permanent) injury on a bike, including head injuries. For most of us however, that risk is well worth the pay off.

Do you have a citation for this? or better still for head injury rates in Australia, that being what I understood Xplora's claim to be about?

[wizdofaus]

Certainly in many European countries it's pretty clear you're more likely to be killed travelling for a certain amount of time in a motor vehicle vs on a bike. Stats for Australia are a bit murky unfortunately, going by, e.g. TAC figures, at best you can can say for sure is that cycling is no more likely to result in a fatality or permanent injury than driving. OTOH, you're definitely more likely to have some sort of minor (non-permanent) injury on a bike, including head injuries. For most of us however, that risk is well worth the pay off.

Do you have a citation for this? or better still for head injury rates in Australia, that being what I understood Xplora's claim to be about?

You can look up fatalities/permanent injuries on the TAC site. Offhand I don't have any other references saved anywhere, but I might have to dig them out again at some point.

[human909]

You can look up fatalities/permanent injuries on the TAC site. Offhand I don't have any other references saved anywhere, but I might have to dig them out again at some point.

Here is some data but some is fairly old.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36229/cros ... risons.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In Australia as a car driver there are 0.33 deaths per million hours as opposed to 0.42 for a bicycle. It is not hard to believe that in Europe driver is more dangerous on a time basis. Either way they are the same order of magnitude which when we are talking about such low risks it is totally comparable.

[wurtulla wabbit]

Hypotheticals and marketing slogans aside, are you really arguing that the graphic I linked to does not demonstrate that speed, once an accident has occurred, kills?

I think he's arguing that "speed kills" is a wimp out by the State.

He was also directly arguing against my point.

I sort of agree with the above. I would not say it is a "wimp out" though. The problem is that people, in general, appear to be stupid so you need a catchy slogan and also threaten them the might of the law, because it is about protecting other people - I do not really care if someone chooses to speed (or whatever) and kills just themselves. If people, in general, were clever and logical they would understand why speeding is a bad thing - and that it is not about them - and not do it, therefore no laws or catchy slogans would be necessary, especially for the sake of their personal entertainment or saving a few seconds or maybe minutes here and there. Clearly this is not the case.

Some emphasis that speed does actually kill in PSAs would probably be a good thing as, at least IME, quite a few people just do not seem to get it.

the mention of the helmet tells the reader that the helmet magically stops their whole body from injury.

Only anti-MHL proponents seem to think this is the case.

I gave up with you as you obviously think everyone else is wrong and you are right.

If speed kills, why do people fly jets and passenger airlines doing 1000kph ?

Reason ? Get to destination faster, same base reason (other than sport) that most do.

Des it kill ? No, the reason people die is human error.

If they squashed someone up against a wall at 31 as opposed to 30, they'd still be hurt or killed, I do not believe that 1kph makes them a killer, their lack of judgment or error will.

As for MHL, its a crock of crap, plain and simple.

Raced, trained, rode bikes in UK for 30yrs without a head injury and stacked majorly over table tops, triple whoops and on wet roads.
Still alive.

It's a bloody nanny state Australia !
I thought Aussies were free thinking blokes, not airy fairy's with a gazillion poofy laws !

Harden up australia, your countries slipping from your control !

[wilddemon]

Yes it is a bit dusty but good work on digging it out. Tell me if I'm reading this wrong but the data;
a. Supports the claim that a car journey is more likely to result in fatality than a bike journey by 20%.
b. However km for km the bike is 4 times more likely to result in a fatality.

So if you are going for a "spin" the bike is safer, but if you are going somewhere (for example commuting) then it is safer to take the car. That is purely in black and white terms of you live or die.

Conclusion: although the data is very old, if you are pumping out some kays the bike is considerably more dangerous. Though hour for hour car trip is 13.5% more likely to result in fatality than bike. Therefore, with previously posted data that shows that not wearing a helmet increases the likelihood that you will suffer a severe injury by a factor of 4 (there's a leap of faith between severe injury and death, but that's all I have) then if you wear a helmet, in Australia, then km for km cycling will kill you as often as getting there in a car. Otherwise, its 4 times more likely to kill you. I don't have data suggesting the benefits of wearing a helmet in a car (though I recall hearing years ago that it improved safety of driver, don't know about passenger), but I will suggest that for all practical purposes that MHL in cars is not likely in the near future. I also don't see the practical purpose in police pulling over an unhelmeted cyclist to determine the nature of their journey (milk and bread you say? On your way then). Still think all this data supports MHL, especially since the most vulnerable cyclists (younger riders) are less likely to wear a helmet. I will concede though that those cyclists are less likely to be pumping out kays.

[wilddemon]

Quick addendum to above, most cars now have air bags etc so expect cycling to be more dangerous in comparison.

And to WW, feel free to jump off the tower of London.

[wurtulla wabbit]

I'd be free to do so, there's probably a billion laws here preventing it !

[wilddemon]

I LOL'd

[wurtulla wabbit]

Anyway, do the cops actually enforce these silly laws ?
I know one approached us a few years ago but was laughed at and he went away probably feeling a bit silly, but has anyone actually been stung by them ??

[il padrone]

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=31309&start=5550#p931635" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

86 people during Operation Halo, 19-22nd Feb.

[wilddemon]

I think some stats were posted recently that suggested that its not very common for people to get fined. Edit: thanks again for the clarification I.P. Mind you, the anti MHL apparently wear helmets most of the time but don't want to be told that they have to wear helmets. Reminds me of this from your countrymen;


Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother... sister, sorry.
Reg: What's the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

[il padrone]

Please drop the facile arguments

If you've read anything on the topic or even a fraction of this thread you should know quite well why helmet-wearers argue against MHL, many of whom wore helmets before the law came in.

It's very old and tired to see such insulting guff continuously dredged up.

[wilddemon]

By my calcs you have been here for 37.5 minutes.
Why don't you lighten up and get a sense of humour?